Skip to main content

tv   The Young Turks With Cenk Uygur  Current  February 23, 2012 4:00pm-5:00pm PST

4:00 pm
here's the cigarette stand. no one has any problem with this? (vo)and current tv creates the commentary that drives the truth. this is the new current tv. >> all right. within the young turks, guess what's happening? president obama is being attacked and high gas prices. we are going to show you why that is 100% nonsense, totally and utterly not true. also, ron paul and mitt romney apparently the bromance. fascinating. >> >> it was smacking back and forth a little bit. >> does anything sound more disgusting than a santorum sandwich? >> they came one night and i
4:01 pm
heard them. before i could get up, they just drove the door open and came back inouye we're going to talk to the film maker. there is an amazing film about that and does it sound like gay marriage today? you know what? it's go time. >> everybody knows that we've got a tremendous problem in this country these days with gas prices. they keep getting higher and higher and we are getting hosed. so in orlando for example this is not normal, but it is amazing, there's one gas station that has prices up to $5.89. that's insanity. what are the problems going to do? blame president obama for everything, of course. watch newt gingrich and mitt romney here.
4:02 pm
>> i have developed a program for american energy so no future president will ever bow to a saudi king again and so every american can look forth to $2.50 per gallon gasoline. >> i will open the key stone pipeline and get energy from canada. >> we'll come back to key stone. did newt gingrich say bow down to a saudi king? remember this guy prince abdullah was holding hands with president bush. this guy nearly made out with him, you are talking to me about bowing down to saudi kings. please! how are you going to get prices down as president? that's nonsense. president obama had a big idea on what's causing the gas price spike. let's listen to that. >> oil is bought and sold in a
4:03 pm
world market and just like last year the single biggest thing causing the spike right now is instability in the middle east this time around iran. when uncertainty increases speculative trading on wall street increases, driving prices up even more. so those are the biggest short term factors at work here. >> see, that is nearly exactly right. now, some of you watching or who knew the show might be saying right, you always support the president, right? then you haven't watched the show very much. it's mainly the oil speculation. why am i saying i know for sure the republicans wrong on this and it's not because we didn't do enough domestic drilling. we did key stone oil line and the drill baby drill then gas prices would change.
4:04 pm
that's exact nonsense. we have quadrupled the number of drilling rigs under president obama. quadruple! we drilled, baby drilled and then domestic oil production is at an eight year high, higher than under bush. what more do you want? so we did it, we drilled. in fact, demand also actually went down in america last year too. so over the last year, u.s. oil demand down 4.6% in fact. that should be good. if there's less demand, you should have lower prices, but you don't. i'll tell you about that as well. it has to do with oil speculation. if they were actually worried about this domestic need for oil, the republicans probably would have agreed with legislation. the republicans said hales we're going to make sure that you approve the key stone oil pipeline because we need more domestic oil and send that in
4:05 pm
legislation to the president. that's great, i want to make sure all the oil stays here in the u.s., makes accepts right? should pass, right? wrong again. in fact, he said: >> ok, fantastic. what was the vote? 254 say no, 173 say yes. it did not pass. but wait a minute, i thought you wanted domestic oil here it is. sale. why? >> because they don't care about us, getting domestic oil. it's about helping their benefactors, the oil companies so the republicans and by the ray, they voted with the oil company to say you can take the oil from here and sell it anywhere you like, to china to our enemies, we don't care.
4:06 pm
it's not about the american people. why? of the 254 members, 230 are republicans that voled against the amendment. combined in their careers have gotten $37 million from the oil and gas companies. that's over $146,000 for every member that voled against that amendment. this is it, this is why they vote no. this is why they vote with the oil companies. it isn't about us, it isn't about domestic oil or that it would lower gas prices. if we did the drilling and then let the oil companies sell it where they'd like, they get richer and they funnel the money back to those congressmen who are sellouts and own sup as i hades of those aim oil companies. i want to show you one more number here. why are we so focused on oil speculation?
4:07 pm
there's a good reason why. the supply and demand as we've shown you over and over is not bad. demand has dropped and the supply of oil actually into the future looks great it probably should be low, but here's why. 36 pegs of oil trading comes from actual producers and merchants. that makes sense, hedging, insurance in get it. 64% of the oil trading is speculators. that's what's driving the prices. so when you hear on television talk about oh, my god, if we just did more drilling, it is a lie! it has nothing to do with that! it has to do with those oil speculators driving nearly 23rds of the market and keep driving the price up and putting the money in their pacts. goldman sachs, the top banks top multi-national banks and coke industries. gee, i wonder where their money goes. oh, that's right, to the republican party.
4:08 pm
that's how he get where we are today with this kind of propaganda. i want to bring in experts here. christopher swan focuses on the energy industry, and chris i wanted to ask you about the speculators first. obviously my views on it are clear. am i will overstating it here or the fact that they control two thirds of the market make a very large difference in the price of oil. >> there's a large degree of truth in what you're saying. over the shorter term, speculators can make a big big difference and have gained increasing amounts of power. many feel the large amounts of money slushing around in the world have found their way into the oil markets. i definitely agree with you on that. i also think that it's perfectly reasonable to say that america can't drill its way out of this problem. the u.s. accounts for about 9%
4:09 pm
of the world oil production. any increase they make is really a drop in the ocean. >> so, talk to me about newt gingrich. he says -- he's president, that's it, it's going to be $2.50. i didn't know presidents could do that. >> it's extremely dishonest. it's utterly impossible for a president to affect the oil pricing quite this way. the strange thing is as well that although america only accounts for 9% of global production it accounts for 21% of global consumption. it would be much easier for maker to affect the global price of oil by reducing consumption rather increasing pumping. at the moment, america is actually doing both. it has been pumping at huge amounts. american oil production has been declining really pretty much continuously since the 1970's until relatively recently. now you're seeing this big boom
4:10 pm
in oil sale production from places like texas, but also seeing a great boom in actual production about the time b.p. was messing things up. >> steve coonan worked for the oil company beep. he said: >> this republicans say hey if we drill here in the u.s., they seem to imply that we would simply keep that oil and that's it, we don't need saudi arabia oil because that's american oil. does that make sense? >> it makes perfect sense. oil can be transported anywhere around the world and refined in most areas. it's really a myth to imagine that you can produce it in america and expect that the oil companies will sell it at anything other than the global price. that's of course you get
4:11 pm
infrastructure bottlenecks. there has been a slight gap opening up between american crudes and global crudes that has been declining and probably won't last very long. >> i've heard about coke industries holding oil in tankers before they bring them to their refineries. why do they do that? >> this is the only real way speculators can affect the oil price over the longer term. in the short term, it's sometimes rather like betting on a horse race. it doesn't affect how fast the horses run. the best way an oil speculator can affect the price is actually taking it off the market, putting it on tankers, preventing it from reaching consumers. this is what some of the banks did in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis when oil fell to very, very cheap levels you.
4:12 pm
put it back on the market when the oil price recovers. it's strategy that makes a great deal of sense if you expect the price to rise even further. >> all right, all the ways that money flows out of our pocket into their pocket. there goes more money out of our pocket. christopher thomson, thanks for joining us today. we really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> when we come back, we'll talk about how the republicans keep pledging that they are going to reduce the deficit. once again, we are going to prove that that is 100% not true. ♪ ♪ (vo)weeknights... >>the weakest citizen in this country is more important than the strongest corporation. my god, this is one of the stupidest things i've ever
4:13 pm
heard! you got a bone to pick with that? the blood is in the water and the sharks are bipartisan.
4:14 pm
4:15 pm
is on the new news network. >>welcome to the war room. >>jennifer granholm joins current tv. a former two-term governor. >>make your voice heard. >>detremined to find solutions. >>that partnership in order to invest in our country is critical. >>driven to find the truth. >>how did romney get his groove back? >>fearless, independent and above all, politically direct.
4:16 pm
>> we are back on the young turks. on this show we do a segment called the human microphone when with he try to defeat republican talking points. these talking points that you've seen for your whole life. today we're going to talk about how they want to balance the budget. of course they don't want to do that. we want to you share it with everybody else so we can all work together to make sure those talking points are dead and buried. so, let's do the human mic. ♪ ♪ >> all right. mic check! >> mic check! >> not bad. the talking point we're going to take on today is we just want to balance the budget. oh, we care so much about the deficit. why are a great majority of candidates making it much, much worse with their tax plans? led me share the numbers with
4:17 pm
you mom a non-partisan group u budget watch. fair is fair, ron paul actually would reduce the deficit under his plan, cut taxes tremendously for the rich, $5.2 trillion cutting spending by $7.5 trillion. he'd blow up the department of education, et cetera. i don't agree with those philosophies but he's earnest. he would eliminate individual income tax, state tax gift tax and reduce the corporate tax rate. now, that's a simplifying his
4:18 pm
plan. >> mitt romney has a tax plan that is not not as bad as the others. he would add to the did every sit and he had spending being reduced by $1.2 trillion. that would of course be taken away from the deficit but under his tax plan which has now been amped up taking away 20% more taxes from the individual tax rates, capitol gains eliminated, dividends and interest eliminated, for couples under $200,000 to be fair, not for everybody. they say tax would be eliminated for everybody and corporate taxes would be reduced. what's the final number? it used to be that it was $250 billion that he was adding to the deficit, but now that he's lowered the rate from 35% to 28%, another break for the
4:19 pm
rich, of course, what's the final number then? well, he is going to add $2.6 trillion to our deficit. this is a non-partisan group. now, how about rick santorum? he also wants to reduce taxes by $6 trillion. is he going to reduce spending in the same amount? no, he winds up eliminating the state tax and reduces the individual income tax and final result is he would add $4.5 trillion to our deficit. what happened? i thought you wanted to balance the budget. i thought you cared about the deficit! $4.5 trillion, worse than mitt romney. newt gingrich can't be that bad, right? wrong again. he takes $7.1 trillion and gives it to the rich with that reduces spending by $2.7 trillion, eliminates the capitol gains tax
4:20 pm
and state tax. everybody eliminates state tax because that is only for the very, very, very rich. they eliminate it, all their plans do. he also reduce the corporations because that's who he works for. bottom line for newt gingrich, increasing the deficit by $7 trillion. so when you talk about the three major republican candidates saying they want to balance the budget and president obama has added to the deficit, understand that they are liars. they don't care about the deficit. their own plan, they would destroy the deficit, destroy the budget, add to it tremendously. what is their real purpose? you see it in their tax plan, to help the very, very rich. they don't give a damn about us or our budget. they only care about their rich friends. now you know it, go tell everybody, because those are facts and don't let them lie to you again about how they care about the budget or the deficit.
4:21 pm
when we come back, well, the republicans had a bit of a food fight last night. we're going to cover that and who wound up the winner. mitt romney is a cool guy. he wanted to do some pop culture reference. [ laughter ] >> as george costanza would say when they're applauding, stop, right? nobody can ever get enough. [ male announcer ] it's lobsterfest at red lobster the one time of year you can savor 12 exciting lobster entrees like lobster lover's dream or new maine lobster and shrimp trio. [ laura ] hot, right out of the shell. i love lobster. i'm laura mclennan from spruce head, maine, and i sea food differently. soft, sweet coconut. covered in rich, creamy chocolate.
4:22 pm
almond joy and mounds. unwrap paradise.
4:23 pm
only one who thinks an amendment to the constitution may be in order. that's next on "the war room."
4:24 pm
>> we are back on the young turks. they had a debate among the republicans last night. there was a lot of fighting back and forth. let's have some fun and watch that. >> you don't know what you're talking about. >> nice try, now lets look at the facts. >> you are not entitled to misrepresent the facts and you're misrepresenting the facts. >> you get to ask the questions you want, i get to give the answers i want. fair enough? >> he voted for it, but now is running on the effort to get rid of it. so i think the record is so bad. >> there were so many misrepresentation in there, it's going to take me a little while. >> as president i would impose earmarks. >> that's always a copout
4:25 pm
comparing yourself to the other members of congress. the american people of sick and tired of the members of congress. >> so don't look at me, take a look in the mirror. >> four years ago, you not only endorsed me, you said this is the guy who is really conservative and we can trust him. let's not forget you said that. >> you have a new television ad that labels him a fake. why? >> because he's a fake. >> i'm real, i'm real. >> congratulations. >> thank you. >> two parts of that that i love, the ending there where romney is staring down gingrich, what now newt? and he's like nice try buddy. i thought for a second is it go time. and ron paul you called him a fake in your ads why?
4:26 pm
because he is fake. >> is it a brain? skull? it's he cantic politics man! >> michael joins us now. i want to show you a couple parts of this debate and then talk about it. first of all, rick santorum trying to go after mitt romney. this is probably maybe his best moment. watch. >> governor, you balanced a budget for four years. you have a constitutional requirement. i'm all for it. i'd like to see it but don't go around bragging about something you have to do. michael dukakis balanced the budget for 10 years. does that qualify him to be president of the united states? i don't think so. how was that? >> that was pretty good. i mean, mike dukakis is my former boss. i ever to be nice. i don't know how effective that dig is in 2012, by the way. >> i hear you on that. that reminds me of putting
4:27 pm
chester arthur. ok, all right. but now mainly santorum got attacked here. he was on the defense for most of the night, and he was challenged about no child left behind. let's watch that. >> he was against the principles i believed in. when you're part of the team sometimes you take one by the team for the leader. politics is a team sport folks. >> yeah, so he took one for the team, which sounds disastrous. ok. >> i actually thought that was a very bad answer to be honest. >> it was a terrible answer. rick santorum has taken it for the team before. he stayed with george w. bush until the bitter end on iraq and got thrown out of office because of it. that was really the tie-breaker if there even needed to be one for santorum in 2006. >> i thought he was playing defense too much throughout the night and had these complicated answers, i had to take one for the team and didn't believe it
4:28 pm
and now i would do something else. >> it's very difficult to be a sitting u.s. senator or former u.s. senator and run for office. you voted on so many things over such a long period of time. santorum is finding out why john kerry had such a hard time in 2004. you have such a paper trail, it's very difficult to get around it. >> yesterday, i talked about how whenever you're leading not only do the attack ads come after you, robo corps et cetera, but it becomes a bit of a referendum on you. now that it's a referendum on santorum, he isn't doing as well. >> he didn't do well, but not as poorly as a lot of pundits have said. >> liberal conservative pundits and journalists have thought that he lost across the board. >> did he loose? he didn't do well as the front-runner. he had a chance to run away with it, perhaps. he didn't run away with it. it wasn't a victory for anybody.
4:29 pm
it's not like mitt romney had an amazing night to take to the people of michigan to say now you've got to volt for me because of the debate. >> people around talking that anymore, but i think there's some chance he rigged this crowd, too. >> absolutely. it was disproportionate, the number of people supporting romney and his organization. that was smart moves by romney. >> let's show everybody. >> i want to restore america's promise and i'm going to do that. [ applause ] [ laughter ] >> as george costanza would say when they're applauding, stop, right? >> he said i want to restore america's greatness. that's not something to applaud, that crowd was rigged. jason alex ander tweeted:
4:30 pm
>> dinner! >> actually, it was the line jerry said the line on the show, not costanza. >> that's also true. seriously, as you said, you have to give him credit, working behind the scenes. >> he's running for president. of course he's working hard. it doesn't make him a good candidate, won't make him a good president. >> i mean as a candidate. of course i don't think he'd be a good president. santorum or gingrich could have rigged the crowd romney found a way so what he said america they're oh, yeah romney, let's go get them. >> when you have the money to organize these things, it makes it easy are for romney to do that to have the crowd behind him. the whole question is why are there audiences at these debates?
4:31 pm
i was talking before the show, the booing last night reminded me when they booed mexico, the gay soldier. this is a circus. it's embarrassing. >> let's watch them boo birth control. >> from cnn politics.com, since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidates believe in birth control and if not why? [ booing ] >> it's a very popular question you have. >> it's a very popular question to the audience, you can see. we're not going to spend a lot of time on this. >> can i just make a point? [ booing ] >> here we go again. they are not booing birth control, they're booing the question. i think what they're saying is we got our ass kicked on this issue, can you please stop asking about it. >> that's exactly what they're doing. the people who started talking about birth control in this
4:32 pm
presidential race was rick santorum. he brought it up before it was ever asked in a debate five or six times on the campaign trail in an interview, the same things are going on now. they bring up these issues and get booed. because they are not popular in public. the audience was crying for them, why did you ask that question, because now obama has a 20 point lead on the contraception issue, his compromise that he offered. all of a sudden they want to run away from it. one thing about the debate that was really interesting was a question about israel to gingrich. let's watch john king ask the question here and gingrich's response. >> the prime minister of israel called you said he wanted to go forward and question, do you agree with your chairman of the joint chiefs and stand down. >> he thought iran was an irrational actor. i can't imagine why he would say that. i just cannot imagine why he
4:33 pm
would have said it. the fact is this is a dictator who has said he doesn't believe the holocaust existed. if an israelie prime minister says i believe in the defense of my country. i do believe there are moments when you preempt. if you think a madman is about to have nuclear weapons and use them, then you have an absolutely moral obligation to defend the lives of your people by eliminating the capacity to get nuclear weapons. >> michael, i thought that was a stunning moment. apparently i'm alone, because no one else was talking about where he said commanders on on the ground, who gives a damn, i would did he ever to a foreign leader. >> i think for the stand on his country, not whether or not we would get involved. it's the ignoring of your own men and women in defense is i think unprecedented that they would do anything. did someone talk about it in a
4:34 pm
presidential debate. if you're going to elect someone on confidence alone, newt gingrich would win this hands down. it's embarrassing sometimes the way he says things. >> if you're going to elect anything on hypocrisy, he would win hands down. commanders on the ground, you should listen to them! >> the only thing he has been consistent on is hypocrisy. >> the president has issued an apology for the accidental burning of a koran in afghanistan. should he have done that? i actually think he shouldn't have. we'll discuss it. >>people like somebody who's got a spine. >>determined to find solutions... >>we need government to ensure that people have freedom. >>driven to find the truth... >>what's really going on? >>fearless, independent and above all, politically direct.
4:35 pm
4:36 pm
polar shifts will reverse the earth's gravitational pull and hurtle us all into space which would render retirement planning unnecessary. but say the sun rises on december 22nd and you still need to retire td ameritrade's investment consultants can help you build a plan that fits your life. we'll even throw in up to $600 when you open a new account or roll over an old 401(k). so who's in control now, mayans?
4:37 pm
[[vo]]...we're the idea nobody wants to hear. ...until the truth reveals itself. boat-rockers. and above all... and there's only one place you'll find us. weeknights on current tv.
4:38 pm
>> we are here with our power panel. eleanor clift, contributing editor or newsweek. mark blumenthal, polling editor for the huffington post. first topic is on afghanistan. should president obama have apologized for the accidental burnings of the koran that happened apparently on our base? so, 11 people have been killed in rioting since then, 19 injured and now we find out there are two dead u.s. service members because of all the violence surrounding this. president obama said "i convey my deep see thises and ask you and the people to accept my deep apologies." i actually think he should not have done that. i think that it was an accident, i think that for the president to go that far, i thought was unnecessary. what's your thoughts? >> it may have been an accident, but it still offended people and we're not talking about offending people who we don't like. we're talking about offending people we're allied with and who are fighting alongside of our
4:39 pm
soldiers in afghanistan. i think the president did the right thing. it would have -- it would be ridiculous for him to withhold an apology when clearly it may have been an accident, but it's deeply offensive to people who practice the muslim religion. i think if we're going to accept that we offend people with the catholic church, if we have birth control as a requirement that was talked about and accepted here just a few days ago. >> right. >> i think we have to accept this, as well. >> right, eleanor, i don't think he is apologetic to our enemies i'm not going to the crazy republican line here, but they've got a funny way of showing their friendship to us. here's one thing i think they should apologize for, killing two u.s. service members is a million times worse than burning a couple of pages of what of book. >> well, sure.
4:40 pm
but you know, i cover politics so i'm not going to tell the president of the united states how to handle foreign policy. one thing is not necessarily connect saided to the other. we were arguing 24 hours ago about a supposed war on religion in the united states. if there's an offense that we did by accident, he's the commander-in-chief, so why not apologize. >> i hate it. in guantanamo bay when they flushed the koran in the toilet, they did that on purpose. it was offensive to all muslims you apologize for that. it was wrong and intentional. when it was an accident and they're killing our guys, hell know. i wanted to fight fundamentalists, whether christians or muslims. i wouldn't have done it. the president is more diplomatic than i am in 18 different ways. i do want to do a different topic as well. that is the theory that rick
4:41 pm
santorum and ron paul are b.f.f., what the kids called besties these days. is there any validity that they are in cahoots? >> there's no doubt that ron paul's going out of his way to be kind to mitt romney. he doesn't attack him in debates. he's spent his super pack and his campaign spent millions of dollars of ads attacking whichever conservative alternative to romney is doing best at the moment. he sure was helpful to him in that debate last night. >> what's going on, eleanor? he's tough on santorum, and that's what he does. i get it. he was tough on gingrich, but why not on romney? what's the deal here? i think he figured out that romney is the likely nominee. ron paul wants to roll at the convention. he knows romney needs him because ron paul appeals to young people. i think this is a marriage that's made in mutual self
4:42 pm
interest. you can almost see romney winking at him. it's kind of obscene, but ron paul, the way he goes after santorum, that was pretty blatant, saying, you know, an ad saying he was fake and indicating he is fake. i must say poor rick santorum extends his arm, i am real, you know, touch my arm, i'm real. it was quite a sad moment, i thought. >> real quick here, i think the convention speech is not that big a deal. i might be wrong. is there any chance he's trying to parley this into a v.p. role not for ron paul but for ran paul. >> ran paul said he would be honored to be mitt romney's vice president. >> i didn't know that. >> his spokesman followed up and said he was just answering a question, this was not meant to send a signal or anything, but it's awfully convenient. >> eleanor, last word, yes?
4:43 pm
>> yeah, i think he he's go ahead ran paul's future in mind. i can't believe he'd be the vice president. he does not have the skills of his father. may be he can develop them and i think ron paul sees a great future for his son and that's part of it. he wants a speech. he wants a prime time speech. that's big in this world of politics. >> ok. all right. interesting. god that was a great conversation, thank you. we really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> now, when we come back, the amazing story of the couple has changed the allows in the united states to allow interracial marriage. >> we could go away, but i don't think it's right. if we do, we will be helping a lot of people.
4:44 pm
4:45 pm
4:46 pm
4:47 pm
>> hbo has a documentary called the loving story, the story of a couple a lot of you are familiar with if you've read history, they're the ones that challenged the ban against interracial major in virginia. >> i didn't know there was a law against. we could go away, but it's the principle, the law, i don't think it's right. >> they sentenced us a one year in a state penitentiary. >> what are the things that can only be done together by a man and wife that they can't do in virginia. >> we pinch ourselves and say we are handling a major civil rights case. >> i'm not going to divorce her. >> they were going to put them in jail for interracial marriage and that was not that long ago. it's an amazing story and one that film maker nancy berski
4:48 pm
told. thanks so much for joining us. tell me, and the audience who are not familiar who the lovings were. >> the lovings were an interracial couple. she was black and he was obviously white. they fell in love when they were teenagers and married when she was 17 and he was 23, but they had to go to washington, d.c. to get married because they knew they couldn't marry in virginia. they came back to live and the sheriff came back and arrested them in the middle of the night and dragged them off to prison. he did spend time in jail. she was in jail for five days and richard in jail for one. ultimately, they accepted a suspended sentence in order to avoid a year long stay in the penitentiary. to avoid it. they accepted compile from virginia for 25 years.
4:49 pm
>> it's amazing. people think of it like that happened centuries ago, it was so long ago and nobody was really, come on, was anybody really on the other side? no, it was not that long ago and yes, people were on the other side. listen to what is said. watch. >> the judge in his opinion had the following things to say. almighty god created the races white, black yellow and red and placed them on separate couldn'tments and but for the interference with his arrangements would be no cause for interracial marriage it is. he did not intend the races to mix. the laws are ludicrous. >> as i watch that, we are playing the same exact movie with gay marriage, quoting the bible, i'm positive, the lord said it. if the lord said it, we must put
4:50 pm
them asunder. >> there were 24 states when they were arrested, there were 24 states that still had these statutes on their books. by the time it got to the supreme court, there were only 16. our film make the point that in 2000, alabama still had it on its books. there are an awful lot of people that felt very strongly about interracial marriage. it's one of the reasons it took it such a long time to get to the supreme court in the first place. >> what surprised you most about the lovings? >> you know, i really grew to love them. unfortunately, i never did meet them, because they had both passed away by the time i began this film, but they're so unassuming yet noble. richard acted on principle. he refused to divorce mildred. there were other people that lived together had children, if they were bothered by the
4:51 pm
authorities, they would just get divorced and continue living together, but richard would not do that. mildred with all her modesty was determine to do something. she wrote to robert f. kennedy and asked them if there was anything he could do for her and he put them in touch with the aclu. what surprised me about them and what i grew to love about them, even though they were not activists and not out to change history, they got that job done and it reminds us that anybody can change history. >> absolutely. we just showed a picture there of them kissing. that apparently was banned from life magazine, is that right? >> no. it wasn't officially banned. life magazine published nine photographs. they were taken by a freelancer at the time working for life, and what's interesting about the ones they published is that they never showed the lovings in the same frame, so you never so you them together, no less kissing
4:52 pm
but he had taken many more and loved that family. he gave the family many more of those photographs. when we were doing our research, we went down to caroline county, visited with the daughter, peggy, and she gave us 70 prints that he had given to them, and you see many, many of those pictures in our film. >> one last thing. the sense that you give back now these days is well of course they were going to win the tide of history, et cetera but in the middle of that fight it didn't seem like enough course at all did it? >> no, it didn't. there was so much intolerance at that time. we were very fortunate to have i think a very enlightened supreme court, but i don't think you can take anything for granted, and i don't think you should take it for granted today. you know, segregation has always been about keeping people separate. the idea is that if they get to know each other, then they may get to like each other and experience each other's
4:53 pm
humanity, and then who knows fall in love and have chirp, and we start diluting the whiteness of our race. there's still a lot of people who believe in that, just as in same-sex marriage, we shouldn't take the evolution for granted. i think that will change he eventually, but, you know, there are still to many people that have trouble accepting change. >> and they always justify it with scripture, et cetera. don't believe the hype. >> that's right. >> the film maker behind the loving story, a documentary on hbo right now. thank you so much. really appreciate it. >> you're welcome. >> when we come back, you asked me when did i switch over from being a republican to a progressive? that's a good question. you saw my little bit of conservative roots in that afghanistan answer. i'll tell you when i switched over andy when we come back. and chocolate.
4:54 pm
♪ ♪ hmm twix. also available in peanut butter. protect medicare and rebuild the middle class. >> steve israel runs the dccc, appreciate. >> thank you.
4:55 pm
[ jim ] sam adams boston lager is my favorite because it has so much flavor. so i wanted to design a glass that would enhance the flavor and taste of boston lager. we did a laser etch on the bottom. [ bob ] releases the hop aromas. this bulb is for collecting aromas and there's a little ridge on the inside. and that allows you to sense the hops as it enters your mouth. the way this hits your tongue, you really get the full flavor out of sam adams lager. [ bartender #2 ] having a boston lager in this glass was like tasting a boston lager for the first time again. it sounds crazy, but it really works. maybe you can change too? you're a dreamer annie. the streets are all i know. i'll never get out of here. streets! [ female announcer ] new starburst flavor morph. changes flavors as you chew.
4:56 pm
v
4:57 pm
4:58 pm
4:59 pm

74 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on